>>4342050>its between 12 and 13This is the kind of nophoto that believes in noise cutoffs
Whenever gearfags rate dynamic range, they use a noise cutoff. There is ALWAYS more dynamic range than they say there is. They say "raw is raw, NR doesn't count". This gives manufacturers room to sneak NR in with every release and claim they improved dynamic range when really, it hasn't fucking changed since 2016. And it's definitely more than 14 stops.
A human observer, a non-gearfag, would look at this and say "the fuji x-t3 has about 15 stops of dynamic range". And this is iso 640, 12 bit readout...
You are being scammed THIS hard. Every DR figure you know is based on noise, and the confidence level of an algorithm. Humans can "see through noise" just fine when computer models call it low confidence data, but that's of concern to art, not metrology or reproduction.
>but it doesnt count, the NOISE! THE NOISE!One pass of noise reduction later and it has more dynamic range. Wow. RAW is not, and has never been truly RAW so you've been scammed from the start. Your DR charts are arbitrary depending on how much NR the manufacturer wants to bake in and how good they've gotten at fooling gearfags into thinking it's not there.
>>4342057But the film looks better, and can achieve that look in a single shot. The digital just looks worse.
